Posted on 10/10/2004 4:38:20 PM PDT by Stubborn
The Second Vatican Council's reforms and the new theological challenges it posed placed the question of unbaptized babies on the back burner for most theologians, but many bishops around the world have asked the doctrinal congregation for guidance on the question.
The Orthodox simply do not define many doctrines which the Roman church does define. There is a vehement hatred of all things Roman by certain Orthodx, who are very well-represented on this site. Hence, if one doctrine can be associated with Roman speculation or post-schism doctrine, its antithesis is immediately put forth as Orthodox doctrine. Which is silly, of course, because the point is usually that the Orthodox do not so much oppose Roman teaching, but find the doctrines put forth by Rome to be unwarranted speculation.
On the contrary, people were thronging to John's Baptism, including Jesus the Christ Himself. It was the in thing to do in those days.
What is the more likely assumption to make is that the process was not complete for mankind until the Lamb of God made His Sacrifice.
Since John's Baptism was such a phenomenom in those days, why would we speculate that Dismas was also not Baptized? Because he was a thief? I say we have Baptized theives among us even today.
On the contrary, people were thronging to John's Baptism, including Jesus the Christ Himself. It was the in thing to do in those days.
What is the more likely assumption to make is that the process was not complete for mankind until the Lamb of God made His Sacrifice.
Since John's Baptism was such a phenomenom in those days, why would we speculate that Dismas was also not Baptized? Because he was a thief? I say we have Baptized theives among us even today.
Baptism is a public statement that a person makes to show what they are confessing to believe:
Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Becky
We are however, certain of a few things; namely that he is now in heaven because Jesus told him so and that Christ did not establish the necessity of Baptism till after His ressurection.
Since Christ did not institute the Sacrament of Baptism until after His ressurection, whether or not the good thief was actually baptised or not is of no consequence.
***Since Christ did not institute the Sacrament of Baptism until after His ressurection...***
I find this difficult to believe in light of the following passage...
"Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), He left Judea and departed again for Galilee."
-John 4
It is clear from the above that Jesus' disciples were baptizing quite early in his ministry. Now unless you think they were doing this of their own accord, it is fair to assume they were doing it with Jesus blessing.
Also...
If baptism is so critically important in terms of salvation and spiritual new birth, why do we find Paul with such an unconcerned attitude towards it?
"I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
- 1st Cor 1
Spiritual birth must be accomplished without the necessity of baptism for Paul, in the same epistle, to the same readers, claims...
"I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel."
- 1st Cor 4
In other words, through Paul's preaching of the gospel to them something happened that was powerful enough to transfer them into the family of God (i.e. new birth) - and this without then necessity of baptism as seen in the first chapter.
***Thats correct. Every unborn child who dies without Baptism as well as every infant or child who dies before the age of reason without first being baptized will never see the face of God ***
Your theology necessitates a theoretical construction (limbo) that is never mentioned in the Scriptures and does not reflect the character of the God of the Scriptures.
This is the God of the Scriptures...
Matthew 19
Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people, but Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven." And he laid his hands on them and went away.
Mark 10
And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it." And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.
Luke 18
Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them. And when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."
Paul also said:
1 Cor. 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
NOT TO BAPTIZE, but to preach the gospel. The gospel is what saves, not baptism.
Becky
Mat: 28:5 And the angel answering, said to the women: Fear not you; for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 28:6 He is not here, for he is risen, as he said. Come, and see the place where the Lord was laid.....
......28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
28:19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."
Again, in Mark 16:6 Who saith to them: Be not affrighted; you seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified: he is risen, he is not here, behold the place where they laid him......
......16:15 And he said to them: "Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16:16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.
It is this explicit command of Christ that not only instituted the Sacrament of Baptism, but also declared it as being wholly necessary for our salvation.
Prior to this, His command, the old law, i.e. the law of the OT was still the requirement. Now, if you want to debate what happened to people who, not hearing this command, died shortly after this command was given, I would hazzard to guess that if they were just, they made it at least to Purgatory, but I do not know and seriously doubt any one knows exactly how God judged those particular people.
***As I said, Christ did not make Baptism the requirement till after His ressurection: ***
What was it before hand, an elective?
You didn't address my question...
"If baptism is so critically important in terms of salvation and spiritual new birth, why do we find Paul with such an unconcerned attitude towards it?"
And we know that Paul was writing "post resurrection".
***16:16 He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.***
Interesting to note here that damnation is a result of failure to believe, not of a failure to be baptized.
not to baptize That is, the first and principle intent in my vocation to the apostleship, was to preach the gospel before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel (see Acts 9:15). To baptize is common to all, but to
preach is peculiarly the function of an apostle.
See post 52
Well, I appreciate your positivity. I do hope that you noticed the inclusion of the word, "certain." Sadly, it seems to ME that any discussion I read about reconciliation ends up with several of these people declaring that they find no value in reconciliation. I'm glad your experience is better.
It is clear from the context...
"I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
... that Paul wasn't too concerned terribly about baptism.
This is exceedingly difficult to reconcile with your believe that baptism IS salvation.
The water of baptism isn't magical. Baptism is not salvation. It is the outward sign of a repentance and turning from sin that has taken place IN THE HEART. If that hasn't happened, then no salvation has happened - no matter how much water you put on your head.
Would you believe it if Peter himself told you?
Can any man forbid water or doubt that these on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended may be made members of the Christian Church by Baptism, as Christ ordained?
I never once said that Baptism is salvation, I said, and quoted Jesus, that it is a necessary requirement for salvation. IOW, as Jesus said, without it, no one gets to heaven.
" By God's grace it can happen, but how it can eludes me."
Well, I'm not holding my breath! From the Orthodox side, we've been kicking around a Pan Orthodox Council since at least the 20s and haven't gotten anywhere that I can see except mad at each other! All in God's good time, I suppose. In the meantime, counting coup on each other just makes matters worse, but a good, open and respectful discussion at least has the value of teaching us where the other guy is coming from and that's no small thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.